How Social Work Constructs Poverty: The Centrality and Structure of Poverty Discourse, 1935-2005 Background

How Social Work Constructs Poverty:  The Centrality and Structure of Poverty Discourse, 1935-2005

Background

      This project examines the relative frequency and content of discourse around poverty and the poor in the professional social work literature during the period from 1935 to 2005. Although the NASW Code of Ethics continues to indicate that poverty and the poor are central concerns of the profession, a number of critics have charged that other concerns have become dominant.   Other critiques have suggested that the structure of the profession’s interest in poverty has altered over time, reflecting the increased importance of individual rather than structural focii.  There have been few efforts to develop empirical information to evaluate these charges. The pilot project presented here addresses this lacuna.

 Methods

      The project employs discourse analysis to examine the relative frequency and constructive focus of articles that address poverty in the Social Service Review. This journal was selected for three reasons. First, it publishes material drawn from each of the major domains of social work. Second, it is the general-interest journal which has the longest continuous publication record. Finally, it is one of the most highly-cited journals in the field.

      The project analyzes a total of 160 articles drawn from the period 1935-2005. It examines each article from the 1935, 1945, 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995 and 2005 volumes, calculating the share of articles that address poverty.  

      It also examines the way in which poverty is constructed by developing and coding categories based on research literature. First, it examines the relative share of articles that focus on poverty from an individual perspective as against the share that focus on the way in which political, social and economic structures create poverty. Second, it examines the frequency of discussion of poverty in particular categories, such as articles that examine poverty in the context of women and children, on men, on homeless individuals and on the elderly.  The examination of categories over time makes it possible to understand the way in which particular aspects of poverty become more or less salient to professional discourse at specific times.

Results

1)      Although the frequency of articles that address poverty has shifted over time, a majority of articles in 6 of the years examined address issues of poverty (Range:  56% to 71%).  This pattern did not hold in 1945 (47%) and 1955 (40%).

2)      In each year, structural discussions of poverty were more common than individual discussions.

3)      In each year, discussions of poverty in the context of women and children predominated. Discussions of male poverty and the poverty of childless working age adults were very infrequent.

 

Conclusions and Implications

1)      Assertions that the profession has diminished its focus on poverty and that this focus has taken a primarily individual focus are not supported by this analysis.

2)      Poverty is most often discussed in terms of its effect on women and children.  The poverty of groups such as males and childless, working age adults receives much less attention, suggesting new directions for research.